[turtle777]

Hey Spheric, up so late, or so early ?

-t

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Punitive damages don't exist in your world, Snow-i?

What punitive damages could she possibly claim?

Originally Posted by wikipedia

]Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are damages not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff.
Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy.

So using tax money to give her a bonus is going to prevent this in the future?

Or, alternatively, answer how that would appropriately prevent under-compensation for her (lack of) medical bills and/or psychological suffering? She did not suffer any loss monetarily, psycologically, emotionally, physically, etc. She didn't lose anything at all. In fact I'd argue that she gained valuable experience in the art of watching where you are stepping.

They simply aren't appropriate here.


You don't automatically get money when someone messes up and you just happen by. If you were financially or otherwise damaged then you should be compensated for that loss via a monetary award...but in this case loss was not incurred and sucking TAX MONEY out of our pockets to pay her is not going to help a damn thing.

She simply didn't lose anything, and is trying to cash in on the fact that someone else didn't do their job properly.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So using tax money to give her a bonus is going to prevent this in the future?

What? From your post, it appears you've completely missed the point:

The idea of punitive damages is to use the DEFENDANTS' money.

"Punitive" means punishment for the guilty party. I.e. "You ****ed up; you pay extra so you don't forget."

[olePigeon]

I know she wasn't paying attention, but the city workers were negligent. They're supposed to mark the work area and possible hazards before they start working.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What punitive damages could she possibly claim?

Well, the workers were being recklessly negligent. I don't think it's likely any would be awarded here, but that would be the reason.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So using tax money to give her a bonus is going to prevent this in the future?

Or, alternatively, answer how that would appropriately prevent under-compensation for her (lack of) medical bills and/or psychological suffering? She did not suffer any loss monetarily, psycologically, emotionally, physically, etc. She didn't lose anything at all. In fact I'd argue that she gained valuable experience in the art of watching where you are stepping.

Wow, you really don't understand the idea of punitive damages at all. Two fun facts about them:

1. They don't have anything to do with tax dollars.
2. They don't have anything to do with compensation.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, the workers were being recklessly negligent. I don't think it's likely any would be awarded here, but that would be the reason.


Wow, you really don't understand the idea of punitive damages at all. Two fun facts about them:

1. They don't have anything to do with tax dollars.
2. They don't have anything to do with compensation.

I think he is talking about tax money because it was a government agency that they are suing. Anything that gets awarded would come out of tax money.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I think he is talking about tax money because it was a government agency that they are suing. Anything that gets awarded would come out of tax money.

Oh, I see. I misunderstood. I don't think the penalty would actually take any tax dollars. It would presumably just hit the budget of whichever department was in charge of that project.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I think he is talking about tax money because it was a government agency that they are suing. Anything that gets awarded would come out of tax money.

That would certainly make sense of his post.

I apologize if I just misunderstood.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

What? From your post, it appears you've completely missed the point:

The idea of punitive damages is to use the DEFENDANTS' money.

"Punitive" means punishment for the guilty party. I.e. "You ****ed up; you pay extra so you don't forget."

Right, and giving her punitive damages is going to prevent the city from doing that again? No, its not. She isn't owed anything and needs to get that sense of entitlement out of her head. She fell in a man-hole and should count her blessings that she wasn't seriously hurt....

As for the "punitive damages." Awarding a benefit to her is NOT GOING TO PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE and is therefore inappropriate....nor is she in danger of being under-compensated. She hasn't lost anything to be compensated for.

So what criteria would you give it to her for? Because she's a victim of the ruthless taxpayer (who by the way can't even seem to afford decent contruction workers)? Just because its a lawsuit and she could have been hurt badly?


She isn't owed anything by anyone. She hasn't lost anything. She learned a good lesson. Why in the world do you want to encourage such behavior by awarding free cash for negligant behavior by all parties involved?

I'm surprised and appalled that you would encourage idiocy and even award a cash prize just because some city workers messed up. If she was hurt, she should get partial reimbursement for medical costs, but that isn't the case.

Let me go find a manhole and i'll break out my cell phone. With your mentality, I could make a fortune off of the government.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, the workers were being recklessly negligent. I don't think it's likely any would be awarded here, but that would be the reason.


Wow, you really don't understand the idea of punitive damages at all. Two fun facts about them:

1. They don't have anything to do with tax dollars.
2. They don't have anything to do with compensation.

She'd be suing the city? correct? So it has everything to do with it.


I addressed number 2. A punitive award isn't going to prevent this from happening in the future.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Oh, I see. I misunderstood. I don't think the penalty would actually take any tax dollars. It would presumably just hit the budget of whichever department was in charge of that project.

Uhh...do those departments pull that money off the money tree out back? I hope you weren't seriously implying that those "departments" aren't using tax money.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That would certainly make sense of his post.

I apologize if I just misunderstood.

I probably should have clarified that up front. I assumed that we were all on the same page here. I'm sorry for assuming that. Disregard the parts of my previous post addressing that. :-)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Uhh...do those departments pull that money off the money tree out back? I hope you weren't seriously implying that those "departments" aren't using tax money.

They are using tax money, but they've already taken that money — the public doesn't pay any more or less depending on the outcome of this lawsuit AFAIK.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

They are using tax money, but they've already taken that money — the public doesn't pay any more or less depending on the outcome of this lawsuit AFAIK.

Indirectly, though, any punitive damages would affect the budget and therefore leave less tax money to allocate to other tasks—probably resulting in poorer quality of work and/or scrapping of projects. That, in a way, is tax money, too: it’s the real-world effect of the tax money being used as intended.

[SpaceMonkey]

"Tax money" doesn't have special powers or properties that carry on with the funds as they migrate their way through the federal/state/municipal budgeting process. At some point it's just money. If levying punitive damages against a city department makes whoever calls the shots pay more attention to making sure that their employees do what they are supposed to do, then that would be the award working as intended.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

"Tax money" doesn't have special powers or properties that carry on with the funds as they migrate their way through the federal/state/municipal budgeting process. At some point it's just money. If levying punitive damages against a city department makes whoever calls the shots pay more attention to making sure that their employees do what they are supposed to do, then that would be the award working as intended.

The whole point is that it won't.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

"Tax money" doesn't have special powers or properties that carry on with the funds as they migrate their way through the federal/state/municipal budgeting process. At some point it's just money. If levying punitive damages against a city department makes whoever calls the shots pay more attention to making sure that their employees do what they are supposed to do, then that would be the award working as intended.

No. Its tax money the whole way through. The money they take from us to provide services etc etc. Levying a judgement against the taxpayer isn't going to do a thing to the people responsible for this. It comes from somewhere and the ideology you're representing right now is exactly what has us in this economic mess right now in the first place.

What entitles that girl to that money? You've failed to satisfy the requirements for punitive damages being an appropriate judgement, and there is nothing to compensate.

What else could there be? And what in the hell makes you think this idiot is the one to give it to? If anything, give that department enough to have enough staff to do the job properly....if it comes to that. Making their job harder won't fix this issue and next time its another lawsuit....what then? Raise taxes to pay for lawsuits? Ridiculous.



As a side note....if the budget has to account for frivolous lawsuits time and time again, they'll need to increase taxes to have the appropriate amount of funding. So it does affect all of us (at least everyone paying taxes for that area).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

See, that's more in line with what I agree with. To me there should be no question of liability - the city should be responsible, because they were negligent. But in this case there were no damages and thus a lawsuit is a waste of time. A lawyer's job is to protect and promote their client's interests, but in this case they need to stand up and gently let them know that an apology is the most they should be expecting to receive.

greg

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No. Its tax money the whole way through. The money they take from us to provide services etc etc. Levying a judgement against the taxpayer isn't going to do a thing to the people responsible for this. It comes from somewhere and the ideology you're representing right now is exactly what has us in this economic mess right now in the first place.

What entitles that girl to that money? You've failed to satisfy the requirements for punitive damages being an appropriate judgement, and there is nothing to compensate.

What else could there be? And what in the hell makes you think this idiot is the one to give it to? If anything, give that department enough to have enough staff to do the job properly....if it comes to that. Making their job harder won't fix this issue and next time its another lawsuit....what then? Raise taxes to pay for lawsuits? Ridiculous.

As a side note....if the budget has to account for frivolous lawsuits time and time again, they'll need to increase taxes to have the appropriate amount of funding. So it does affect all of us (at least everyone paying taxes for that area).

My point is that municipal governments have other revenue besides taxes. There is no halo around "tax money" that makes it special once it's in the system. Is applying a punitive damage in the interest of public safety as productive as using the money for some other purpose? Seems debatable to me.

BTW I don't think a punitive award is appropriate in this case, but I'm arguing on more general grounds.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

As a side note....if the budget has to account for frivolous lawsuits time and time again, they'll need to increase taxes to have the appropriate amount of funding. So it does affect all of us (at least everyone paying taxes for that area).

I would be shocked if a legislature/council at any level of government would be that rational.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My point is that municipal governments have other revenue besides taxes. There is no halo around "tax money" that makes it special once it's in the system. Is applying a punitive damage in the interest of public safety as productive as using the money for some other purpose? Seems debatable to me.

BTW I don't think a punitive award is appropriate in this case, but I'm arguing on more general grounds.

And my point is that if you take money away from them, they need to get money to replace that money from somewhere...its eventually going to come out of our pockets one way or another --the government will make sure of it.


There is nothing about tax money that makes it special, other than its your money they are spending. But that doesn't mean that its ok to spend thousands just cuz. The costs will eventually come back to us.


I'm going to be honest....i think you're arguing just to argue. You've stated you agree with me on the topic at hand, which is what I was presenting my argument upon.

What you're saying now (at least what I'm getting from you, please clarify if I'm mistaken) is that the government spending money willy-nilly really isn't a big deal...its their money anyway right? My point is that ideology got us in this economic mess, and certainly will not help us get out. We shouldn't allow these people with frivolous lawsuits "stick it to the big nasty government" just because...we end up paying for their idiocy in the end. We should save that money for better public service and/or someone that really did lose something due to negligence on the part of the city. I'd have no problems with a judgement for medical bills going her way if she say, broke her arm or suffered a concussion. No more, no less...it shouldn't be looked at simply as a way to cash in on the gov't.

[msuper69]

If I had been dumb enough not to be looking where I was going and I fell into an uncovered manhole, I would have been embarrassed. Sure it should have been covered or attended but suing for something as trivial as this is just dumb.

Suing for everything that happens is a waste of legal resources that could be better used on something serious.

I would have tried to quietly slip away w/o drawing anymore attention to myself and my lack of skill at walking down the street.

I hope she was in a crosswalk. That would be important otherwise she would be jaywalking.

[Chuckit]

Do they not have any manholes on sidewalks in NY?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And my point is that if you take money away from them, they need to get money to replace that money from somewhere...its eventually going to come out of our pockets one way or another --the government will make sure of it.

There is nothing about tax money that makes it special, other than its your money they are spending. But that doesn't mean that its ok to spend thousands just cuz. The costs will eventually come back to us.

I'm going to be honest....i think you're arguing just to argue. You've stated you agree with me on the topic at hand, which is what I was presenting my argument upon.

What you're saying now (at least what I'm getting from you, please clarify if I'm mistaken) is that the government spending money willy-nilly really isn't a big deal...its their money anyway right? My point is that ideology got us in this economic mess, and certainly will not help us get out. We shouldn't allow these people with frivolous lawsuits "stick it to the big nasty government" just because...we end up paying for their idiocy in the end. We should save that money for better public service and/or someone that really did lose something due to negligence on the part of the city. I'd have no problems with a judgement for medical bills going her way if she say, broke her arm or suffered a concussion. No more, no less...it shouldn't be looked at simply as a way to cash in on the gov't.

I'm just saying that making an emotional appeal that the government would be "sucking TAX MONEY out of our pockets" to pay her doesn't really speak to the issue. The tax money has already left our pockets. It gets no special protections once it's in government coffers to save it from being used for some unforeseen purpose. The argument that you want to make (and that I think you've made adequately) is the relative utility of using government money for purpose X over purpose Y. I hope you follow your local/municipal budgeting process and weigh in with your representative(s) if you really care about how your local government is using your money.

Assuming this lawsuit ever actually happens, I expect it to get thrown out. It's possible that the relevant government rules on sovereign immunity prohibit punitive damages, anyway.

[hyteckit]

Here's a video interview of the girl and the manhole I guess.

Watch Out! Texting While Walking Lands Teen in Trouble - ABC News

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm just saying that making an emotional appeal that the government would be "sucking TAX MONEY out of our pockets" to pay her doesn't really speak to the issue.

I disagree whole heartedly.

The tax money has already left our pockets. It gets no special protections once it's in government coffers to save it from being used for some unforeseen purpose.

Exactly why it needs to be made clear that frivolous lawsuits should NOT be profitable.

The argument that you want to make (and that I think you've made adequately) is the relative utility of using government money for purpose X over purpose Y. I hope you follow your local/municipal budgeting process and weigh in with your representative(s) if you really care about how your local government is using your money.

Certainly! I hope they are able to use the money they're receiving to provide me (all of us) with services not pay off some idiot teen who doesn't know how to properly walk (X over Y). We agree.

Assuming this lawsuit ever actually happens, I expect it to get thrown out. It's possible that the relevant government rules on sovereign immunity prohibit punitive damages, anyway.

:-). We agree whole heartedly.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Certainly! I hope they are able to use the money they're receiving to provide me (all of us) with services not pay off some idiot teen who doesn't know how to properly walk (X over Y). We agree.

Except that apparently the city has no obligation to perform those services in a way that isn't likely to, say, drench someone in toxic waste, or even kill someone who isn't a fit 16-year-old. Big waste of money if you ask me. I'd rather have the city smacked around a little and do a better job with a very slightly smaller budget.

As for "doesn't know how to walk properly": She was walking just fine, one foot in front of the other. The city workers failed at their responsibility to do their work in a safe way. The sidewalks are meant to be safe for blind people, for crying out loud. Her expectation that there wouldn't be a large unsecured hole in the sidewalk was reasonable.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Here's a video interview of the girl and the manhole I guess.

Watch Out! Texting While Walking Lands Teen in Trouble - ABC News

Ack, soooooooo Staten Island.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Except that apparently the city has no obligation to perform those services in a way that isn't likely to, say, drench someone in toxic waste, or even kill someone who isn't a fit 16-year-old. Big waste of money if you ask me. I'd rather have the city smacked around a little and do a better job with a very slightly smaller budget.

Yes.

[msuper69]

The manhole was in a sidewalk.

I'm leaning toward her point-of-view.